What I've learned after sharing my photos for free on Unsplash for 4 years

Stairs in Coimbra, Portugal — one of the 460 image I uploaded on Unsplash

This editorial was originally published on Medium, and is being republished in full on DPReview with express permission from Samuel Zeller. The views and opinions in this article are solely those of its author.

What is Unsplash?

Unsplash is a website where photographers can share high resolution images, making them publicly available for everyone for free even for commercial use. It was created in May 2013 by Stephanie Liverani, Mikael Cho and Luke Chesser in Montreal, Canada.

Four months after creation they hit one million total downloads, and a year after they had more than a million downloads per month. Now there are 400,000+ high resolution images hosted on Unsplash, which are shared by 65,000+ photographers from all around the world.

Last month 2,400 photographers joined Unsplash and shared 25,000 new images (not just snapshots, some really good photography).

Here are a few examples:

Visitors in the last month viewed 4 billion photos and pressed the download button 17 million times. The average Unsplash photo is viewed over 600,000 times and downloaded over 4000 times. No other social network can give you those numbers.

Unsplash is massive, and it’s (currently) one of the best place to get visibility for your work as a photographer. Some of my most appreciated images were viewed over twelve million times and downloaded a little bit more than 125'000 times.

Here are the top nine below:

I receive 21 million views per month (677'000 per day) and 93'000 downloads (3000 per day). As a result, every day there’s one or two person that credit me on Twitter for an image they’ve used. I also get emails regularly and new backlinks to my website every week.

And it’s not just for old users who’ve been sharing for a long time, here’s the stats from someone who joined Unsplash just three days ago:

I have to be honest: in 3 days since i joined @unsplash, this has blown me away!! I can’t even believe the amount of exposure this site has brought me!! Seriously anyone who isn’t on this already needs to be!! @instagram time to setup and adapt!! 🙌🏼❤️ pic.twitter.com/VxMhbrd1l2

In total I’ve uploaded 460 images, they’ve been viewed over 255 million times and downloaded over 1.7 million times. Of course these are just numbers, but they are much more meaningful (and larger) than the likes you can get on Instagram or Facebook.

Designers all around the world have been making album covers, posters, article headers, blog posts, adverts and billboards with my images on Unsplash. Like many photographers I chose to turn what was idle on my hard-drive into a useful resource for other creatives.

Here’s a few examples:

That’s not all, one of my first client (when I started as a freelancer in 2016) found me on Unsplash. They’re the biggest bank in Switzerland and I did four projects for them.

One included spending a night at 3,571 m (11,716 ft) at the highest observatory in Europe, the Jungfraujoch Sphinx observatory to document it (full project visible here); the second one was much lower at the Zürich airport photographing below aircraft like the Airbus A340.

The reason why they reached out to me? They were already using a few of my Unsplash images in their global database and wanted more in the same style.

Fast forward to a few months ago, I landed a new client (a design firm) and at one of the meeting they introduce me to one of their designer. The guy said after hearing my name “I know you already, I’ve been using some of your images on Unsplash, they’re great.”

The problem with social networks

People, especially the new generation, are becoming incredibly lazy. Our attention span is lower than ever, and we get stuck in nasty dopamine loops—we literally need to check our phones multiple times a day.

Social networks make us think we need to post new work often to get good engagement and get noticed, but the truth is great photographers take a year or more to publish new projects (for example Nick White “Black Dots” or Gregor Sailer “Closed cities”). Good work will always take time, and it will always get noticed.

We all fight for attention, for likes, for numbers that will not bring us anything good. We are in that aspect devaluing our own craft by over-sharing—being tricked into becoming marketing tools for brands.

The rise and fall of Instagram

What will you do once Instagram becomes old school? I don’t know if you noticed, but Facebook are ruining the whole Instagram experience by bloating the UI and releasing features for brands.

Here’s the user interface in March 2016 vs today on an iPhone 5/SE screen:

Seriously, what the heck? I can’t even see the user images anymore when I land on their profile.

Before Facebook bought it, the app was a simple, chronological photo-sharing service. Now they’re rolling out “recommended posts” from users you don’t even follow right into your feed. The suggested content will be based on what people you follow have liked (and probably on how much brands are paying to shove their ads right into your smartphone screens).

By sharing on Instagram daily as a photographer you are basically expending a ton of effort to grow a following on a network that’s taking a wrong turn. It’s like trying to build a sand castle on a moving elevator—sure, it works. but it’s not the most effective use of your time.

Not only is real engagement dropping, soon your reach will crumble unless you pay to promote your posts. I’m running an account with a little bit over 50,000 followers, and for a post that reach 25,000 people, only 170 of them will visit the account—the rest will just merely glance at the image for a second (maybe drop a like) and keep scrolling.

People create accounts on Instagram, then stop using it after some time. Truth is, many of your followers are inactive by now, and most of the ones that are active don’t care enough about your work to even comment on it.

What’s even worse is that Instagram makes photographers literally copy each other's styles because only a few type of images can get better engagement and please the masses—think outdoorsy explorers taking pictures of forests from a drone or hanging their feet off a cliff. They’re diluting their work and style by focusing on what will grow their account.

Followers are still valuable now, but in two to three years they’ll be worthless. There’s a ton more 50k+ accounts than two years ago. Brands are now looking into accounts with 100–150k to do collaborations. Instagram is a big bubble that will blow one day, and I don’t want to have all my eggs in the same basket when it happens.

Would you take someone seriously if he told you, "I’m working on my Myspace/Flickr account every day! I got soooo many followers, I’m famous!"

I have 16,500 followers on my personal Instagram account and I could close it any day. The reason why? I also have a newsletter with over 25,000 subscribers. Guess which is more valuable and long-lasting?

Too many photographers today are forgetting that a portfolio, experience, publications and exhibitions are far more important than building up their following on a social network.

There’s still a lot of good sides to Instagram, the community aspect to start with and also the fact that there’s not yet a proper contender to replace it. It’s still (to me) the best place to discover emerging photographers and get your dose of inspiration. There’s also a great deal of photography magazines that are actively curating work on it.

The culture of the new

That’s the big problem with photography online as curator and photographer Andy Adams explains, "It’s always about the new, which inevitably means the not new drops off our radars way sooner that it should."

Social networks like Instagram and Facebook are flawed for photographers for this particular reason. They are great for brands who can afford to hire social media managers and post regularly or sponsor content.

There are other social networks that don’t rely on a feed but rather on search, for example Behance or EyeEm. Those are way better for photographers in the long term. They have a higher rate of discoverability.

The images I share on Unsplash don’t lose value, in fact there’s no difference at all between a year old shot and a week old shot. Their value are not based on time. I could stop uploading new images and still have a lot of visibility every day. Try not posting on Instagram for a month…

Here’s a real example, those two images below were shared on Unsplash in October 2014. Notice how they still gather a ton of views/download per month even after four years?

Leaving a mark

Last year in February I lost my dad to cancer—he was diagnosed just a month before in January. I wrote before on the concept of memory and digital data (See: the data we leave behind) but his sudden death made me realize how short life can be.

We always say "we need to enjoy every moment, life is fragile," but it’s impossible to understand it fully until you have lost someone close. My father had bookmarked my website, my Instagram account and my Unsplash account on his laptop, he was checking them often, he was probably my biggest fan.

What’s left of him are memories but also his files on his computer—photos of him and his art (he was doing digital art and uploaded a lot of pieces on DeviantArt). I’m grateful to have all of this to remember him.

As a photographer and artist I feel like it’s a necessity for me to also leave something behind, because we never know what will happen tomorrow.

Having some of my images on Unsplash is one way to ensure that even if I’m gone my work will keep on living. Another way is through prints and books. Speaking of which, I’m finishing my first book that will be published in April by Hoxton Mini Press.

Photography isn’t about making money as a freelance photographer, it’s also a part of us, stories of where we traveled, visual tales of our singular experiences with life. I choose to share it as much as possible because I can.

There’s one last reason why I share photographs for free and Josh summed it up very nicely in one of his Medium article, here’s what he wrote:

“Beauty has always been free. It came in the box with sunlight and eyeballs. It was granted to us upon birth as we first laid eyes upon our beautiful mothers and then mother Earth. For those of us with extreme empathy and a wide-eyed approach to seeing the world, finding the beautiful all around us and capturing it is a deep and glorious honor. Yes, you can have that image at the top for free — perhaps not because it has no value, but because I simply want you to see what I can see. I want to share in the joy of this world’s beauty. The image, in that scenario, is only a document of our mutual appreciation for it. And maybe taking money off the table in that discussion is actually what helps it remain beautiful.”

What’s next

I feel like Unsplash is just the beginning of a new era of photography. It’s thrilling to be able to grow with it.

I was born in 1990 just before the world wide web, and I’ve seen how technology evolved for the past twenty years. I’m afraid of how addicted we have become to it. How fast paced things have become. We need more generosity, community based efforts, human curation and less algorithms driven by the need of profit. We need to slow down.

Some projects are trying to focus more rewarding artists instead of advertisers, and Ello is one of them. I’ve made the decision to stop using my personal Instagram account and switch to their social network.

Samuel Zeller is a freelance photographer based in Switzerland, an ambassador for Fujifilm and the editor of Fujifeed magazine. You can contact him here and follow his recent work on his website and Ello.

This video brings up some interesting points. I wonder if Unsplash will be undone in a class-action law suit by a group of people who want to get paid for the commercial use of their photos . . . or by a company who gets sued by someone who never singed a model release or a property release, yet the company used a photo of them or their property in a commercial ad campaign, thinking it would be just fine, because Unsplash "gave away" the photos, stating that the photos were free for all uses, including commercial use.

Excellent article. I'm joining. I have so many photos I've yet to share. Some I could potentially sell, but others are not necessarily marketable, but may be of interest to others. Thank you for such a thoughtful article, Samuel Zeller.

Sam Zeller was born in 1990. It all makes sense - he's never worked as a professional photographer or even trained as one or under one. He's part of the generation who grew up with digital and the concept of, "I bought a camera! I'm a professional now!" So it makes sense that he doesn't know his worth or know how to charge and most certainly doesn't get the respect to get what he should be charging.

Yes Sam, I know you did a shoot for a bank and sold some photos but trust me - you got reamed and you're not even capable enough to know how badly. You made some money in the low 5 figures and think you scored when the reality is for the work you've done, you should be in the 6 figures but again, since you didn't train under real photographers and learn how to be a business person, you think the fact that you made $15 or $20k giving tons of your work away for free you're now a successful photographer. How far we've fallen; how pathetic we've become. They're laughing at you, Sam.

You're totally right, I trained and worked as a designer. Photography came later. I was making about 6300$ per month (+ 13th salary) as a designer in agency before choosing to move to photography for various reasons. I get respect from many other professionals in the field, and from my clients. That's enough for me, I don't need the respect from trolls like you. I don't define success with money, success can't be put into numbers. The success I'm having at the moment is being to have 3000 copies of my first book out, edited by a publisher in London. It's doing exhibitions, selling prints and being recognized as a photographer that matter to me. You can give me all the money in the world it's not what makes me happy to wake up every morning. And fear not for my income, I have just what I need :)

This article bothered me so much in so many levels. First there is the "if you give your work for free, eventually you will make a dollar from this". It sounds more like an Advertorial than anything else. The "my dad died, so you should be on this" is just gross... And the "Instagram is over" is like, what planet are you on??? I wish Samuel Zeller would delete his IG account to make a point if he is so gung-ho about Unsplash... And please, 16K followers but only 500 likes per photo??? I don't even have 10K followers and I often get four times those likes... Maybe if he had real followers he would notice how important IG really is...

Sorry it bothered you. Trust me it's not an advertorial, I'm just happy with the product. I never said you should be on it because of my dad. Instagram isn't going to last for 5 more years, that's the general consensus I've heard from various users from 10 to 150k. I've stopped posting on my own account, I keep posting on @fujifeed daily. The reason why my engagement is low on my personal account is that because it's quite old, I have a lot of inactive followers. I restarted the account three times. First time I had maybe 650 shots all from an iPhone 5. Check the engagement of @fujifeed that's real followers. And please, as an artist like you take more time to do art and less time to troll other people work. It will be beneficial for you in the long term.

@samuelzeller why don't you focus on shooting competent photographs instead of writing articles that will actively harm young and aspiring photographers who don't know any better... Trust me, you would actually make the world a better place that way...

Guess what, I'm working on a guide for Monocle, will shoot 3 days in Provence for a design agency soon and I'm preparing an exhibition + book launch in London. Plus it's wonderful I still have the time to write articles and run Fujifeed :)

@samuelzeller See, Sam, you may not be aware of this, but your actions and your words don't align. Add the fact that you have commented on pretty much every comment on here, and it seems to me that you are not really writing to help the photography community, but more to get recognition and notoriety. You claim Instagram will be dead in a few years, yet, pretty much every day you post a photo on Fujifeed (by the way, why boast about Fujifeed's 50K followers given than none of those people are actually following you? Maybe you just boast to feed your insecurities...) Still, why spend time and effort on a dying platform??? I am glad that you get to do a shoot in Provance. And congrats on your book and your exhibition. Still, you are not the only photographer who gets those. Screaming "I am successful” belies the fact that you just wish you were...

I admit I am a novice. One who recently drank the koolaid. I have uploaded 10 images and must say my experience has been bleak. Totally unlike what has been written in this article. Only two downloads and not even an acknowledgement. I believe that for amatuers/novices like myself, Flckr is a far better fit. Moreover, only a handful gets shown/highlighted as new daily. Not sure who or how photos are selected but some IMHO are just ok.

A real business will want more for free once you give them something for free. Their negotiations, if any, begin from 0, and when they offer you $1, and then $2 they have effectively doubled their offer!!

The real answer is to have Canon, Nikon, et al make an extremely limited pieces of each camera model each year. Say 5000. Of course that will make each piece priced exorbitantly, but it will ensure that only the ones who can actually bet their livelihood as a photographer will buy it.

Most photos in the World ARE "for free" . . . except the people shooting them spent money to take that vacation and buy that camera or smartphone.

;)

I think it's funny how many photographers are up in arms about this. Unsplash isn't going to stop people from hiring wedding photographers. Unsplash can't give people portraits of their kids for free. Unsplash isn't going to offer realtors free photos of the property they just listed. Unsplash can't give free photos of a product someone is trying to sell, so they can use those photos in magazine ads, their brochure, on their website, and in on-line advertising. Sorry, but Unsplash can't kill photography, and anyone who thinks it can is an idiot.

Whatever you are an old dinosaur who refuses the technical evolutions or a geak who can justifies the unjustifiable, I thing the main problem here is not the kind of free servicesThe main solution human being must found now is how to remunerate people and allow them to eat, housing, pay taxes...And this not only true for photographs. By reading the long list of interesting posts, I read plenty of example of people working for free.For me the solution is Universal Revenu. The English name of this concept seems to be the basic income (see wikipedia).There are so many wealth generated by world of finance, mainly by automated algorithms and AI developed to optimise flows.It is time for humanity to create a new social model, more ethical, more equal and probably the Basic Income is the key.So that, at the end of the day, if you are a genius photograph, your piece of art will get the visibility and the credit you deserve. And for the others, you will have your basic income

As a Professional Photographer I am very concerned with this kind of free photography sharing. This is the the beginning of the end of Professional Photography of a way of living. I am TOTALLY against it !!!I have my beals to pay and I life to live !!!

All the social networking nonsense about "views", "followers", "likes", "exposure", etc. aside (which have absolutely zero real value), how successful would Unsplash be if it weren't offering high resolution copyright-free photos? That's the bottom line. Commercial users get free photos. I don't have a problem donating my photos to worthy causes. I apply a non-commercial Creative Commons license to my photos. But if somebody uses my photos to generate revenue, that's another thing entirely. They owe me.

I agree that those numbers don't have a value, that's why I also have a newsletter and other ways of reaching people than Unsplash. In a way exposure has a value, I sold 8 books the day this article was published. People won't hire you or buy your prints if they never land on your portfolio. Yes there's word of mouth, but it's slow and not always the best way to reach the clients you want.

Unsplash is a centralized platform misusing desperate photographer's needs. Author obviously didn't hear about Steemit, decentralized blockchain platform that pays microrewards in cryptocurrency for your quality content. It is the most efficient way of monetizing your work, exposing your work to the World, and keeping control over your photos.

Ok, let me blow your mind: what if I download let's say 100 photos from Unsplash, then I open an account and upload them as if they were my photos? Would anyone notice or even care? All I have to do next is to wait for the call from the big client, right? 😁

I spend my hard-earned coin on expensive camera equipment, and making images, whilst some startup jockey smokes cigars by a pool in Hawaii and doesn't give me a cent? To quote the horse from Ren and Stimpy: "No sir, I don't like it."

Think of it as Unsplash using your work as bait, so Crew can attract, hook and land the Big One, which will then belong to them, of course, not the community. It's the old "what's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine" business model.

I agree, Instagram is like a rat race.As far as Unspash, it is common, especially in the design world to contribute your design work for free. It's usually done by those trying to break-in into the market and make a name for themselves.

We just need to understand, it's internet, and there are no real rules on internet. Everyone is out there trying to fend for themselves.

I worked as a designer, using other people fonts, textures, graphic elements, images. I know where designers and art directors go when they need to make a quick proposal for a client for a pitch. They go to Unsplash. If the client loves the photos he'll likely say "find me a photographer that can do this" and then the agency will find one, most of the time in the area. If I was based in the USA where Unsplash is more popular I'd get even more jobs from it.

"Methinks thou doth protest too much" springs to mind after reading your many responses. For someone with no vested interest in Unsplash, you sure have been proselytizing quite a bit on their behalf.

Sublety is key when doing this sort of marketing. I think you stepped over that line when you added: "I know where designers and art directors go when they need to make a quick proposal for a client for a pitch. They go to Unsplash." This whole thing smacks of The Hard Sell by now.

sop51, as one of DPreview staff explained, this is not an advert and I'm not sponsored by Unsplash. DPreview have pretty strict rules for sponsored content, since it's the law in the US. See here: https://www.dpreview.com/sponsored. I worked for a few years in an agency and we used Unsplash a lot to make creative briefs for clients. I'm also in contact with a few art directors (from past projects and also because run my own online magazine and collaborate with others on it) and Unsplash is something that's mostly used by agencies and freelancers in the field of design, graphic design and marketing. I'm sorry if it's wrong in 2018 to take the time to write so passionately about a brand/website/product/community.

I think this is exploitation of photographers who are desperate enough to try anything to get their work noticed. If a company genuinely wants to hire a photographer based on his or her portfolio, then they should go to other sites that lets visitors view galleries in high enough resolution while also protecting the creators' copyrights. I see no reason why anyone would need to give away the copyrights to their work just for exposure.

One of the company that hired me is a bank, do you really think they are browsing Flickr or Instagram? They went to Unsplash to use a few images for their image database and found my work then hired me for multiple projects (all very well paid). Put your work where the clients you want to reach go. I worked as a designer in agency and when we looked for photographers for clients we went 1. To Behance, 2. To Unsplash (to find images for comps), 3. word of mouth. My copyright is fine, what I share on Unsplash is a fraction of what I shoot.

I'm happy that you found work through Unsplash. Your client may not have looked in instagram, but It is still, undoubtedly, the best platform to get noticed especially for people looking to get in the fashion industry. Also, though unfortunate that it falls short on image resolution, everything you upload is still yours.

It is hard for us to support Unsplash because it takes away everything that you have on the photos you upload and it gives nothing back. That is the reality of it. Everyone is free to do what they want which includes using religious images like the ones you posted for the purpose of desecrating it.

I have not sold nor will I ever sell any of my photos with full copyright. Also, we don't actually sell our photos. We get hired to do a job and our clients can use the images in accordance with our contract.

Ok, but that is just you, and it means that you sell images only through individual contracts.

My point was that uploading the image to unspash (for free use) or to some paid system (like getty, 500px, etc) where the user will buy a image, gives the photographer no control other how the client uses the image.

And to be honest, if anything, if one image gets viral even in a negative way, the photographer appears and says how he blame the use and so on, and he gets a lot of "front page coverage" :) It's just a different age, with the bad and the good things it brings...

That is not just me. Most professional photographers that I know, especially the established ones, have similar contracts. Even fine art photographers sell only numbered copies and never the full copyright. Deadmau5 was forced to remove the modifications to his Ferrari 458 Spider because Ferrari didn't like it and they sent a cease and desist letter. Your artistic vision as depicted in your work represents you as a brand and it is why it must be protected.

@don - at this point you just try to be pedantic about my answers. Of course I didn't mean that you personally are the only one photographer on Earth that embraces this model. And actually, as you put it yourself, this model works best for established photographers.

But try to think that you are a 18 years old guy who for the moment wants to get some exposure and make some money... and you are not from Paris or something, but a small town in a relatively poor country. Your model is great, actually i agree it is the best, but not everyone is Ferrari. Some just ask the cost of the parts+manufacturing+survival margin. And that is ok, Ferrari (meaning you) will still be desirable and those who afford it will go for it, while there is also a less expensive and less exclusive market.

You said, "but that is just you" verbatim and now you are telling me that you did not mean that. You are being vague.

I was just like that. I was young, inexperienced, broke and I lived in a small provincial town in the Philippines. Before I shot my first campaign, billboard and magazine I was being paid $100 per assignment to document agricultural stuff in poor remote farming villages for the government. I had one camera, a speedlight and a couple of lenses. What more is there to say? I think that this has something more to do with attitude rather than not having a choice.

I assume English is not your primary language, also it is not mine either, so probably it is normal some misunderstanding to appear in written English. However, you could give me some credit, that i wasn't actually thinking Annie Leibovitz was searching for clients by posting free images on unsplash.

Yes, attitude has a lot to do with it as well. And entourage. And connections. And pure luck. And how much of a charismatic person you are. And what are the "en vogue" marketing technologies at some point. And so on.

I think that in the beginning my point was something like ... good that there are alternatives that suit more people. You chose your marketing and clients and it worked for you. Samuel choose another path and it worked for him. No "desperate" or anything wrong about either path.

"It is hard for us to support Unsplash because it takes away everything that you have on the photos you upload and it gives nothing back." REALLY? So you wouldn't give money to an indigent person, because they can give nothing back . . . right? You worked hard to make that money, right? Why would you give it away? In my eyes, the same goes for photos. We work hard to make our photos, and we can give them away if we want to . . . to get more work. And really it's the "to get more work - paid work" that is really where there IS something back. So the truth is that it's not true that "it gives nothing back." The truth is that it DOES give back . . . in the form of paid work (if someone gives work that is good enough . . . and the amateurs or sucky photographers will get nothing for all their hard work, as it should be).

People don't take an artist seriously if they sell below the normal market rate. They'll value you even less if you give things away for free. Giving me "credit" or "exposure" if I give you images for free so you can make money off them? Well *I* expect those things for "free" if you use my images. And *I* expect *you* to pay me for using them. Not the other way around.

The sooner this clever clever idea that social media somehow totally drives the world, images are valueless, and we all don't have to work because some dumbo will give things to us for nothing , dies the better. The Y Generation have an awful lot to learn and I'm getting the popcorn ready for when this bubble bursts.

"People don't take an artist seriously if they sell below the normal market rate." Yet I've sold countless limited edition prints ranging from 350$ to 950$ + framed prints and did two solo exhibitions and sold 150 books since October. People value the work I do, because the images I sell for prints aren't on Unsplash but they're published in many magazines and blogs. Images are becoming increasingly valueless unless someone give them a good price tag, the value is in the photographer, his services and vision. Billions of images are uploaded every day on the internet, anybody with a camera can get a great shot but not anyone can direct a campaign for a magazine or do pictures for an architecture firm.

Just imagine the money you'd be making if you didn't debase your work on Unsplash. As I said, the "me me me" Y Generation are in for a nasty shock. The world doesn't revolve around freebies - unless you happen to be one of the owners of these "free" sites who will later cash in when they sell the site and screw their users. You'll learn :-)

BTW, I don't make my living from photography. I'm just an interested observer, not someone with an axe to grind because my work is being "stolen".

That's the thing, I wouldn't make any money from those images since they're personal ones, selected and because they wouldn't have as much visibility if they were on any other stock photography website. I've had images on a stock website for nearly a year and made maybe 100$ max, it's nothing compared to what Unsplash brings me. And I love freebies, as a designer I was super happy when a guy I followed released some free 3D models. That's why I want to give a few images, it's a way of giving back to other designers now that's I'm not into design anymore.

Reading the comments here, I see an interesting parallel between the photo industry and the news industry regarding the sharing of free content on the internet. The expectation of free content has led to the demise of many respectable newspapers/news sites. I hope everyone commenting on the dangers posed by free content for the professional photo industry, is just as vehemently supporting payment for quality news.

The expectation of free content also come from the hundred thousand of photographers saying "yes" when a "magazine" on Instagram ask them for permission to repost with credits. I don't think that many of the people commenting here pay for quality new. But they surely all use Instagram/Facebook and help big corporations target them with ads and sell their data.

The bigger problem of the mainstream news-industry might be, that since the advent of free news on the internet and access to alternative (read: non-mainstream) media source established, people noticed that most of the time the content they get from the respectable newspapers is streamlined and tailored to let the public know what they should. I dont't talk conspiracy theories here, but there's definitely more in the world than 10 headlines.

Regarding photography: The whole thing mentioned here, together with iPhoneography and all the other new things regarding imaging is disruptive for the established photography business. It's not good that many artists can't (anymore) make a living of their work. Think family-portraits done by the local professional photographer around the corner. But we can't turn it back, and it does make no sense trying to or whining about it. Things change and the best advice for everyone is to adapt and take the new chances that emerge.

Samuel won the lottery.Millions of teenagers learn to play electric guitar, bass or drums and want to be a rock star...Millions of enthusiastic new photograpers upload to Upsplash, 500px, Flickr, Tumblr, instagram, Fakeburp, ... How many will become a star or even a Pro (paid) ?While in the mean time, some of those enterprises collect the full copyrights on those pictures.wow !Why not an article about how to build your own web presence and keep your copyrights ?

Uploading to 500px = being seen by other photographersUploading to Flickr = being seen by other photographersUploading to Instagram = drown in the massUploading to Facebook = drown in the massUploading to Unsplash = ensuring your images end up in the hands of designers and agencies

I'm just putting my work where I want it to be. I already got a web presence even without Unsplash. Here's a breakdown: 16.8k followers on Instagram, 2.2k followers on Medium, 5.6k followers on Twitter, 35k email subscribers, 53'000 visitors in my portfolio in 2017 (145 avg per day). And guess what? It's just numbers, word of mouth is all that matter. Clients recommending me to other clients that's what works the best. Unsplash just help me keep a momentum, it ensure that even if I don't post anymore on other platforms I'll still get new backlinks every week, new mentions on Twitter/Instagram and Facebook. It's also a way to give something to designers all around the world to use.

a) I wonder what the statistics are for contributors getting work from unsplash vs the percentage of contributors whose work is being used on regular basis, but who don't see a dime

b) Even if you do see work from your contributions, your contributions are not generating any income for you. Therefore, you are essentially paying (with your photography) to maybe find work, which may not be equal value to your contributions.

c) It's very likely that when your clients do hire you, they retain the copyright, so you can't even post the images you took for them anywhere else.

d) Everyone is making money off this deal EXCEPT the contributors who might pick up some crumbs in the form of ADDITIONAL work, rather than enjoying the residuals of the work they've already produced.This is yet another site that screws its contributors with the inspirational rhetoric of "sharing", yet, the site itself doesn't share. These goals and proclamations are always at the photographer's expense.

b) I left my designer career (75k$ per month, could have grown easily to 90k since I'm in Geneva) to pursue photography because I have a passion for it and I wanted to stop working for brands like Bvlgari or Rolex (because they're not aligned with my ethics). I don't seek revenue in everything I do, I wouldn't have finished my first book (a two and a half year long personal project with many travels from my own money) if I was focused on revenue only. I have many other ways to find work, Unsplash is just one of them and it has the benefit of being a "passive" source of referrals and backlink building.

c) I sell the rights (ATL or BTL) to my clients yes, I always retain the right to display the work on my portfolio. Some clients buy the rights for a limited time period (magazines are usually 1 year or less) and then I can sell the images back to the subjects of the articles.

So, as I understand it, working as a designer for Rolex doesn't align with your ethics, but being a shill for Fuji and Unsplash does?

It's one thing not to seek revenue in everything, it's another to give stuff out for free for others to generate revenue from your work whereas you won't even get as much as credit for it.

Even if Unsplash works for you personally, hundreds, perhaps thousands of other photographers get exploited in the process because in the end, when we cut through all the fancy rhetoric and all the bullsh!it, that's exactly what Unsplash does: It EXPLOITS people. That's its business model.

As an admitted beneficiary of this system, it would behoove you to understand and to take responsibility for your contribution and your own personal benefit from this exploitation.

I do whatever I want with my pictures, that's all. If I want to give things for free I do. Other people can make their own judgement on Unsplash, I'm just sharing my opinion and you're free to disagree.

That's correct, you are free to do whatever you want with your pictures. You can give them out as you wish. That's your prerogative.

However, having a forum such as the FRONT PAGE of DPReview saddles you with a certain responsibility. It's a responsibility to consider things beyond your experience, to consider the consequences for those who might not have the same experience and to consider the business model of the platform for which you're advocating.

I don't have a problem with this same article posted on general forums, where you would simply share your opinion and where others would be free to dismiss it. But, once you start writing an article on the FRONT PAGE of DPReview, it's a different thing. Now, you're using the legitimacy of the front page, which automatically gives you a certain authority since not everyone can simply share their experience on the front page of a major site. This authority carries with it a set of responsibilities, which you should consider.

You just like writing about products and services you enjoy? Really, that's all? For something that ostensibly "isn't an advertising," your dogged and ongoing defense of Unsplash sure seems like part of an organized campaign. Advertising, or not, your efforts here have been quite effective at building the Unsplash brand. For that alone, you should be proud.

"Even if Unsplash works for you personally, hundreds, perhaps thousands of other photographers get exploited in the process because in the end, when we cut through all the fancy rhetoric and all the bullsh!it, that's exactly what Unsplash does: It EXPLOITS people. That's its business model."

What is YouTube's business model? What is Flickr's business model? What is Instagram's business model?

all of these just show that many dpreview staffs are not full time professional photographers to make a living. That's why they published this article favoring Unsplash and giving Unspash a free advertisement.

For those in doubt if Unsplash is still good or bad for photographers I found an interesting article that might shed some light into the debate.

I totally agree with the article. If you want attention to your images there are much more interesting social platforms where you don't give your image rights away and can drive the same or more traffic to your site and lice the images for nice sums.

Thanks for the link; excellent, well-written article. Marketing to the unsuspecting, often under false pretenses, seems to be the new internet business model. From the Crew.co site: "The best marketing is when you don't know it's marketing," and "A website or app might just be an advanced form of marketing." Clearly, the intent of this "unsolicited testimonial" for Unsplash is to market the site to unsuspecting users.

I'm really tired of being a target for "advanced form(s) of marketing," but some people don't seem to mind being considered the mark. As a famous man once observed: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." (George W. Bush, 25 March, 2001)

Let's see if I got this right. By their own admission, Crew.co created Unsplash as a site where photographers can upload images, then Unsplash has the right to give these away to visitors to the site. Photographers gladly offer their valuable work for free, convinced this "exposure" will result in future paid assignments, and visitors to Unsplash happily download all this valuable work for nothing.

This free-stuff-is-good marketing strategy creates a lot of "buzz" and sharply increases traffic to the Unsplash site. This ever-increasing visitor traffic to Unsplash is then "referred" back to its parent company, Crew.co. And that's when the real transactions take place: Crew.co then sells its own products and services.

I have to ask: Why doesn't Crew.co just give away their own valuable products and services to their own potential customers? Surely all that "free stuff" would result in "exposure" and create "buzz" for Crew.co, thereby increasing their own future profits.

Samuel, people here can be buttheads but you’re not helping yourself by engaging them like this. You should probably have expected this kind of response when promoting a platform that involves photographers giving away photos for uncontrolled use without credit. There are cases where Unsplash might be worthwhile as a promotional tool, but it needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully, and there are strong arguments for why it might be a bad idea as well. DPR (like most online forums) is terrible at that kind of nuanced discussion, and your defensive responses, while understandable, are not helping.

Also, this article reads like an advertisement. When I first saw it I was seriously wondering where the “sponsored post” tag was. If you’d taken a less uncritically promotional tone and shown some awareness of the widespread perception that services like Unsplash devalue photography and make life harder for professional photographers you might have had a less hostile reception.

I know how comments are on photography websites (here or others) and I accept that. I wrote this article following a previous article that I wrote about Unsplash a few years ago, as a followup. Every tool need to be used carefully and thoughtfully, Instagram, Facebook, Unsplash etc... Trust me this article isn't an advertisement I'm just sharing my experience since I first started uploading images to Unsplash 4 years ago. To me it doesn't devalue photography, at least not as much as what Instagram is doing for photography. People don't realize that by using Instagram they help influencers get money? They participate in the common misconception that photography can be done by anyone, that followers = fame = money. Unsplash is just a drop in the ocean compared to Instagram. I don't care about the hostile reception, I find it interesting. I'm curious to see how photography will be in 10 years.

If someone wants to give something away they created for free, that's their right.

I don't see a huge difference between giving away some photos - 460 over several years is a tiny fraction of a photographer's output - as opposed to giving all your time to a platform like Instagram which is essentially flakey bunch of crap. Everytime you post a photo on Instagram you are giving your photography away for free to Facebook Inc. And what do you get in return?

Sam, I think baggy1 is being sarcastic? What I'm getting is "people" are using Unsplash legally to represent the photos as theirs, as in they took the photo, as in their portfolio, their Instagram. etc. This isn't new with Unsplash. Where in people are misrepresenting their work aka stealing to start IG accounts in the hopes of getting a real follow account they can monetize. Using work from Unsplash to create a subset work or use it in a design vs. using it to lie without any retribution. Is there any wording on the site that would deter someone from doing this? Or are we relying on other peoples' morals LOL.

Yes Techo I was being a bit "sarcy". If the photographers are saying,right we are giving these away copyright free to whoever wants them for whatever purpose, what's to stop me making a whole photography website or Instagram account using these images? The photographers themselves have deemed the pics worthless.The pics I take for a living are stolen and put on bloggers sites as soon as I send them to an agency.They are copyrighted and there is nothing any agency can or will do about it anyway.Not for 50c a pic they can't be bothered to chase things like that up.

I thought this post would make many of the 'professional' photographers very angry and upset - looking at the comments below it looks like more people are angry than happy... and I can sympathize... after all it's they find it threatening their income.

If someone is giving away their photos for free - it's their choice - why would the pros get so upset? after all, many have been doing that with Creative Commons license for at least a decade... only difference with Unsplash is that the quality of the photos are well curated ... and that's the crux of the frustration for some - as it makes making money selling low quality work is little more difficult now... But good photographers will always get hired and paid - their job is not going anywhere.

quo.good photographers will always get hired and paid - their job is not going anywhere.If someone is giving away their photos for free - it's their choice - why would the pros get so upset?------------------------------------Saiko, what do You do for living.?Suppose I`ll do that for free, give Your know-how for free, would You be angry if You loose Your job? We are human and are willing to take freebies even if those are crap.Pros loose their jobs, have lost already. My pro colleagues in the media are unemployed cause amateurs give pictures for free and editors take their own pictures.Overall quality drops. People do not care of each other anymore. This is a question of morality. Could some be so cold that they do not understand, that pros have paid education for 3-5 years, bought expensive gear to be able to shoot anything. Then comes an amateur, shoots crap with iPhone and gives it away for free. Should we really just smile when our source of livelihoodis taken away.

"My pro colleagues in the media are unemployed cause amateurs give pictures for free and editors take their own pictures." That's just not true... Clients who need a wedding photographer won't go to Unsplash, architecture firms who need new images for their website/portfolio won't go to Unsplash, banks who need to make new advertising campaign won't go to Unsplash, a familly that need pictures of their new born child won't go to Unsplash. I'm really sorry but those who are loosing their job are loosing it for other reasons. I studied graphic design, 3D and I worked as a senior designer for years before starting my photography career. The quality is rising, not dropping.

That's just not true.. says samuelzeller----------------How can You know what is the situation in Finnish media?Have You been to Finland?Do You know where Finland is?Do You live here?Have You any finnish contacts?If You say that quality is rising, could You tell the very Finnish newspaper it is rising?Or do You have some other proof from Finland to insist that I`m a liar.

Surprise---there are other countries in this world than USA - believe or not. As I said the conversation here in Dpreview is sometimes about the same as in Breitbart. I rest my case - no use to even try.

Nobody is forcing one to give away all her/his photos - if giving away few good photos for free promotes one's work and bring them new professional assignments, sitting jobless and blaming amateurs is nothing but the incapability of these so called 'pros'.

By the way, I lived in Finland for few years, I know about the job situation there - I know people who finished design school without job and design student joining medicine... but blaming the amateurs for their unemployment is a bit silly.

Many industries go through upsets. The photography world is changing, and I've been hearing stuff like, "There's no money in photography anymore." If you are a dinosaur and continue to try to do things the same way forever, sometimes that works (as in the case of the old shoe repair guy in the hole-in-the-wall shop), and sometimes that doesn't work. There are farmers who continue to do the same thing the way their grandfather taught them 40 years ago, who are going broke today. Huge corporations are buying up all the farms around them and making them more productive. This means they are able to sell their crops for less, and the old farmer can't compete. It happens in many industries. New things come along, and it makes it hard for the old and inflexible. That's just life.

So samuelzeller.You know nothing about how media operates here in Finland - but You know exactly- that I was wrong. Breitbart.-And this other who has been living in Finland :-) and knows the job situation..haaa. I´m the prince of Uganda. -The finnish media accepts the pictures of amateurs for free everywhere and more and more daily and that leads to the fact that professionals loose their jobs. Even finnish TV YLE takes pictures for free and amateurs who lack morality give them for free.-So I read it`s silly to tell how the situation is ! Breitbart.-I`m still waiting SAIKo to tell what is his/hers profession so that I can tell how nice it would be to offer his products etc for free to his clients.-The fact is: people who have morality do not steal other people`s jobs or anything. It`s so easy. And seems so impossible to understand.IF the quality was an important factor, amateurs should ask the same prices as pros and then see who buys. Free lunch? Nada.

As I understand the problem is the finnish media then. I don't steal other people job. Sorry if you're not able to adapt to the evolving situation of the media in your country. Quality is an important factor for most clients yes. The problem is the press media, not the photographers. That's why I work for magazines and not newspapers.

you're not able to adapt to the evolving situation of the media in your country---------------------Is adapting to evolving situation same as giving my pictures away for free?How am I and my colleagues supposed to live then...?Cleaning windows maybe?Or driving taxi?As a errand boy?Cause that`s what they soon have to do because some people do not have morality and they give their pictures for free cause they then have their names published and at the same time they continue their everyday jobs.I am retired but I see the sadness and pain this causes in my students of photojournalism.It´s painful to see the hardness and cruelty of these people in this camera site.Societies are slowly demoralizing and when true and dedicated photojournalism finally dies in couple of years - the fascism is around the corner waiting to deliver real fake news.I`ve been in SOME for years and wonder why I still answer trolls.Me stupid, continue.

living in a marketplace-------------In Scandinavia journalism is not a marketplace like it is in USA.And it should not be. Otherwise all countries will have trumps as president.So go ahead and give Your work for free. I do not. I don`t steal my comrades job like You.

Hey Jore, my work is delivering my clients with great services and tailor-made images. I don't give it for free and never will. And if you're not fond of journalism in Scandinavia then maybe you should do something about it, but commenting on a photography website isn't really the best way to do so.

And if you're not fond of journalism in Scandinavia ---------------------------Where do I say so???? I say just the opposite."In Scandinavia journalism is not a marketplace like it is in USA"---At least seems we can read here in Scandinavia, not like in USA where 32 million adults are "Functionally Illiterate", like You????This is a really good place to write about photojournalism - which is dying because of free amateurs.. As I said earlier this thread looks just like that of Breitbarts. Opinions are not allowed. Different thinking should be done elsewhere.

Thought I'd find new markets today to see how quickly I can pick up work . I e sent them a link to existing work on instagram and have been invited to join them . I didn't give anything away apart from ten minutes of my time . Now I have another outlet for my images and have control over my work

Thanks for the further devaluation of photography. Or you could try actually selling your images through a proper stock agency. Good imagery has value and not just free exposure value but actual monetary value. And if it’s your hobby, fine, have fun with you hobby but don’t ruin the opportunity for professionals to make a living so that you can fuel your ego.

Thanks, I was contacted by stock agencies like Offset. Also wanted to try Stocksy and I had used EyeEm. I make a living working for clients. But you would know that if you read the article, not just the title.

I sell to stock agencies and other sites . The returns can be rubbish and sometimes amazing . I get why people don't wont this Site I see 60000 free downloads and no returns . It's hard today to get started and I miss film because people didn't dump thousands of rubbish images on line that clog these markets up . The markets have really changed and now it's colours moods abstract etc . I've done something similar in the past and seen my images used all over. Was it a good idea no because now if the images have worth othe agencies won't use them because I've given them away

2: "Most people who comment, specially photographers are comparing themselves. I come from design, and in that field it's really different. We usually don't destroy each other work online, we have much more respect for other designers." We see it you have the most respect for designers and not for photographers. Weird that you step in in the wonderful world of image taking/creation when you despise so much your colleagues.3: "Views are real, download too. Here's the global stats: https://unsplash.com/stats Also their team is very nice you should email them they'd provide proof of the numbers :)". Many people already pointed you that views and downloads are fake and pumped up. You keep denying the evidence. 4: "What's going down is stock photography, and that's a good thing". This is a good one. More images are licensed and more money is being paid for stock photography than ever. With budget and time constrains I don't see going down anytime soon.

2. I respect photographers, and I regularly talk about their work. In fact I run an online magazine (Fujifeed) that has the sole purpose of discovering/interviewing and publishing other photographers. And I do that for free.

3. It's simply not true, views and downloads aren't fake. I'm very sorry for you if you believe internet comments. I believe facts, and I got the fact from Unsplash themselves as well as from other Unsplash contributors.

4. It's not going down, it's just becoming impossible to make a living from stock photography because of the millions of images being added to stock each month. So yes in a way the stock photography industry is thriving, more sales. But less money for the photographer that contribute to stock.

I was reading some of the reply the author is giving to many comments and I would like to pint out some of the pearls he is leaving behind so it is easier to understand his decisions and why all is just a huge advertisement for Unsplash. A pyramid scheme, a gold rush where only the first dozen miner really found something......1: "Most photographers online are either jealous of others, or afraid of the photography market dying. I was a designer before and trust me, on graphic design forums or websites you will find much more civilized people than on photography related communities..." ????? This is priceless. So graphic designers are cool and not envous while photographers-what a horrid tribe. I sell thousands of images to designers and know a few , I appreciate them alot. And yes they sometimes have envy and destroy others work too ;-)More on the next post...............

There will always be the next Unsplash that tries to make money off other people's work. Their success depends on a few very successful people that become torch bearers for the brand and fool others to believe that they also can be as successful. It's like a pyramid game and it's only the ones at the top who benefit and actually get paid. The others jumping on board later will mostly just keep the engines running and makes opportunities for real paid work even less probable, other than for the establishment like the writer.I find it highly immoral and opportunistic. Like whores giving it away for free in the hopes of getting a paid gig. The minute one starts doing it everybody else has to do the same.Never been more true than in the online world...

This so-called article (more like a paid astroturf shill piece for Unsplash) is so full of bull that I created an ID just to post a rebuttal. Usually, nothing surprises me anymore, but this one is just WAY out there. Apparently Dpreview will uncritically post just about anything these days.

Before I get started, I want to point out that it's odd timing that Unsplash has been getting some unfavorable coverage recently, and this "I love Unsplash and attribute all my success to them, all other websites suck" opinion just happened to pop up, unbidden.

Let's start with how much this dude is making. From the numbers he threw out there, he's making approx $25k a year doing photography, give or take. All of this, of course, is because of the wonderful generosity of Unsplash letting him post his full size images for free for anyone to download.

Switzerland, for those who don't know, is one of the most expensive countries in the world. $25k is literally minimum wage.

My girlfriend's uncle lives in the country with his wife and 2 kids. He's currently unemployed and draws about 60k a year in unemployement ins. With his wife's income, they make low six figures and consider themselves very poor by Swiss standards.

So good old Samuel, who couldn't even afford a cardboard box to live in with his Unsplash income, either has a real job, a well to do spouse, rich parents, or a combination of all 3.

Next up, of course, is the absurd claim that all other websites have failed him, and suck big time, and only the magnanimous Unsplash, with its incredibly generous policy of letting him post his full size images for free forever, is the only one that can let him earn the massive amount of $25k a year. This point alone is enough to consider this whole article a made up shill piece. Bear in mind that the economy is roaring now and this is probably the most he'll be making. So he hope he can save for retirement on that minimum wage salary!

Everyone supporting all this new "sharing economy", where you share your hard work and maybe vision and some startup whiz becomes a billionaire off your "sharing", don't even know how the whole work for pennies or free thing even started.

The first Microstock site was istockphoto. It was started by a guy called, I believe, Bruce Goldberg. Apparently, Bruce, who did not need the money from stock photography but just wanted to pat himself on the back for being a real BigShot (sound familiar?) kept submitting his sunset and flower pictures to stock agencies, and kept getting rejected.

Enraged, he decided to start a free stock image sharing site with the EXPRESS, EXPLICIT reason of ruining it for all those evil stock photographers making big bucks off that exclusive stock club. Yes, that was his actual reason for starting istockphoto.

Of course, at first it was completely free. But Bruce's noble mission of ruining it for stock photographers ran into some problems.

So many people were downloading these free images that Bruce "had" to start charging money to pay for server costs. Principle is all great until it starts hitting you in the wallet. Then he actually started making money on the whole deal. Bear in mind, there were a lot of turkeys willing to sell images for nothing just to "stick it to the man" (rights managed photographers who had managed to get thru the gates at stock agencies). They even invented a term "trad", meaning "traditional photographer", which they threw around with abandon on the istock forums as they patted each other on the back for the gold stars they got for their huge download numbers.

What are all those smug istocker's doing now with their gold stars? They've spent the last couple years whining about how their reimbursements keep going down, quality standards keep going up, and they get a smaller and smaller percentage of each pathetic sale.

Hey Paul, I appreciate that you took the time to comment. I was making 75k before moving to photography. 25k is what I made in my first year and yes it's less than minimum wage here but it's more than what most photographers make in their first year. I've got a small flat, I don't like big appartements, it's at the 8th floor of a building has a balcony a nice view, floor to ceiling windows and it's perfectly located in the city. I don't own a car, I don't buy useless stuff like I used to do before when I had a good salary. I get clients from a lot of different ways and Unsplash is just one of them. I'll surely make more than 25k one days but that's not my goal, I'm not attached to money that much. As long as I can continue traveling, taking pictures for clients and doing books and exhibitions I'm happy. I feel sad for you, you seem filled with anger. I wish you the best for 2018, learn to appreciate life it's super fragile.

You are not attached to money, as you put it, because someone is subsidizing your lifestyle, which you have failed to clarify, obviously deliberately. Might take the sheen off the supposed "nobility" of your screed if people knew that your parents or your spouse, or say Unsplash, paid your bills to run around and pretend to be a pro photographer.

Even 75k a year is not very much in Switzerland. 25k a year is poverty level and you cannot survive on that much in that country. Of course, 25k is before taxes.

And your book? I doubt someone wrote you a retainer check and is publishing that for free. Doesn't happen anymore unless you're Annie Leibowitz. You're paying to have it published yourself, with someone helping you out.

All of the suspicious claims and half truths you've spouted is what is making people so deservedly suspicious of the trumpets and hosannas you're singing out about Unsplash. Oh yeah, and you're so busy as a photog that you have time to reply to every comment here.

Nice article Sam. I see this as mostly affecting the stock shooters. If a company or agency wants a specific photo series, they're still more likely to contact a photographer whose style they like... much like how Mr. Zeller was 'discovered'.I personally think there are too many photographers, as it's a bit too easy to get into the game - I blame auto-focus and the 'digital ease' at taking a decent exposure.This Unsplash could be what the industry needs... a bit of Natural Selection if you will.

Hasn't this be going on for years, I'm pretty sure there have been many sites like this.I myself have released some photos under the Creative Commons license (CC) and honesty don't get why some people are so up set over it.I personally use open and/or free software and I don't see programmers disappearing.A little of what I use: Wordpress, World Wide Web, Linux, python, Apache.Lets all burn together.

All of the products you have named are mostly developed by commercial developers who are getting paid to develop them. The benevolent dictator of Linux, Linus Torvalds, is a multimillionaire. As he should be.

Crew.co is the parent company, and they don't "work for free." From Quora.com: "Unsplash is not generating any direct income. But for its parent company, Crew, it is their #1 referral source, the assumption being that some of these referrals will eventually end (up) as customers." You can read Crew.co's rationale for the creation of Unsplash on their blog:

Crew.co claims Unsplash users love downloading the free images, and that traffic helps their bottom line. Do the individual photographers providing the free images benefit? I don't know. You'll have to make up your own mind(s) on this type of marketing. You can read several testimonials from Unsplash users and individual photographers on Crew.co's site.

Participating in this kind of "evolution" as a professional photographer makes you an accomplice to the demise of your profession. For years pros have been fighting the "exposure as compensation" paradigm which is simple extortion, and now we apparently have a new breed who have given up this fight altogether and decide to just surrender their work for free.

I'm on the crossroads of deciding to move into photography as a fulltime thing (i.e. a career change), and this type of behaviour makes me have serious doubts about that. It's a dying business, and photographers themselves are helping to kill it.

I didn't say it was altruistic: I am saying it is surrender in the face of a hard reality.

It's getting incredibly hard to defend copyrights these days, what with everyone thinking "if it's on the internet it's free for all".Most of the time when a business grabs one of my images on e.g. instagram without permission, I confront them and present them with a bill, they'll just remove the photo, say "sorry, we won't do it again", and grab an image of another schmuck who is content with the "exposure compensation". Why would they ever pay for a licence if they can get it for free?

You don't ask a grocer, lawyer, plumber, mechanic, or any other kind of professional to work for free, in exchange for you telling everyone what a great job he did, do you?

The point is though that HE may benefit from it, but this trend is in general harmful to the photography business as a whole. In a way it's a pyramid scheme: let all the other saps who believe in him provide free content to Unsplash and generic traffic there, so that he (who is already well established there) can reap more assignments.

30 years taking photos on different projects all over the world and Ive always promoted the value in what I do and can give a client . I only sell to stock libraries now as family and other commitments take over . I would hate to have to make a living from photography now . Reading articles like this may have worked for a few but how many people do this every day with no reward . Good luck to the guy but I still think open doors send in low res work . Good d fashioned communication and send portfolios in would be just as good without giving up hard work

It is very sad to see how many people turning against the idea. Personally I find this idea to be just great! What I've learned from my life is that money kills everything, Make your hobby a job and you'll loose your hobby. I've made this once, and I'm not going to do this with photography.

Photography is my hobby. I do it for more then 20 years and I have some experience so I guess I can produce some nice pictures. Right now they are just sitting on my HDD. Why not let people use them if they want? I've joined.

Thanks for understanding Paul. Photography was a hobby for me between 2012 (when I buyed my first camera) until january 2016 where I left my design agency job. Unsplash was a big boost to help me find clients.

Because somebody make money from your work, and youget nothing, so you are a pure slave, and you make damage those who live from photography... Every images what you are uploaded to this site is not your anymore, you loosed the rights with this kind of license what unsplash offer.

Paul if you don't want to make money from photography because that will ruin your hobby, how come you are using your hobby to help ruin the profession for those of us who do love to take photos for a living?

Doing photography as a hobby does not mean that you should give away your photos and your rights. Do you get some kind of satisfaction simply from knowing others are using your photos?

Professional photographers also get satisfaction out of seeing their photos used... when someone has paid for them. We get really upset when we see our work being used without compensation.

You may be a hobbyist but that doesn't mean you can't think like a professional.

Why does it matter that people choose to give away their pictures? How can you blame them for ruining your profession? If you haven’t noticed, the world is filled with constant change, industry and job disrupters and whatnot. Taxis are being killed by Uber. Traditional stores are being destroyed by Amazon, Apple killed Nokia and Blackberry, and it goes on and on. Get used to it. Such is everyone’s reality in this day and age.

If anything what’s really killing the profession is how good and cheap the tech has gotten and the proliferation of how to videos on YouTube which enables people to take pictures that used to only be done by pros.

Looks like people who are making money with their photo are upset - after all Unsplash is threatening their business... so for them it's difficult to comprehend the pure joy one can get by giving away what s/he loves.

Unsplash would have happened today or tomorrow - one can't stop the natural order of things... but it doesn't mean professional photography would end - it's just that one can't make money selling sh**y photos any more...

People like you and Mr Zeller are ruining the profession of many photographers with this mentality Your snapshots don't affect me personally as each shooting I produce is 1500$+ and fortunatelly those are not in the amateur range so clients cannot go to the usplashed and the likes and have to open their wallets. But those that where making a living with animals,travel,landscapes etc are having a hard time

I have nothing agains sharing images for free to the right people. And for that Creative Commons was created. Bloggers,ngos, associations etc don't have many time the budget although it is quite cheap to license images now. But to give for free with a RF license with no credit to corporations and small/medium business is just dumb, no other word sorry

You are harming lifes of many professionals that are through difficult times and benefiting people that could pay for it. And you still want to get an applause for destroying the value of photography and wonder about the reaction here

What is funny about this is the psychology. Companies have realized that people have such weak egos that they can get them to work for free just by telling them there is a good use for their work. You can't get enough pleasure just from creating photos for yourself, family and friends? Or join a camera club or enter contests?

You need to give them away to commercial users because of what? Do you feel sorry for them and want to help these companies? Do they even thank you for this or do they think you are a total sucker?

Is that some kind of confirmation that you are a good photographer? Are you that insecure?

Hi Mastix, Alan. I do photography because it's a passion, I don't do it for money (if I need more money I'd get back into my design career). I enjoy taking photos for myself and there's a lot of them that I don't share on Unsplash. I also do enjoy working for clients. I don't need confirmation that I'm a good photographer, I'll never be a good one as I believe we're all constantly learning. But from what others have been saying then yes "I'm a good photographer". I'm sorry if you feel I'm harming you in any way, it is not my intent. I'm like every freelance photographer, I try to make a living and live from my passion. I've learned early enough to respect the opinion of others, as many photographers helped me in my career. And don't worry, photography isn't dying anytime soon. All the best!

If you think you are a good photographer then something is wrong if you value your work at zero dollars. Apparently that is the value you think others should see your efforts are worth too.

If I am a lawyer and have a passion for law, but I don't think I'm good enough to charge for my services, I must really be a terrible lawyer or have no confidence in my abilities.

As a 1974 graduate of RIT, a 40 year practitioner of commercial photography, a former chapter president and former national director of ASMP, I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to be successful in the photography business.

I have no idea what you are doing but my guess is you are like many others who are halfway into photography as a "business." You probably don't fully get the application of usage and copyright, don't know the standards and practices of successful photographers, nor do you have a business plan with clear objectives for you financial needs and goals.

BTW... those of you who think that the act of making money from photography will ruin your passion for it are totally wrong. I am extremely grateful and satisfied that I have been able to support myself (very well I may add) my entire working life doing something I truly love doing.

Latest in-depth reviews

After a rare Seattle snowstorm finally subsided, DPReview editor Jeff Keller was able to escape the snow and spend some time with the impressive Fujifilm X-T30, a camera that offers a lot of bang for the buck.

The EF-M 32mm F1.4 is a welcome addition to Canon's APS-C mirrorless lens lineup. It's a good performer all-around and enjoyable to use on the EOS M50, and we hope to see more like it introduced to the EF-M range.

We don't often get excited about $900 cameras, but the Fujifilm X-T30 has really impressed us thus far. Find out what's new, what it's like to use and how it compares to its peers in our review in progress.

The S1 and S1R are Panasonic's first full-frame mirrorless cameras so there's a plenty to talk about. We've taken a look at the design and features of both cameras and have some initial impressions, as well.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

The Ricoh GR series has long been a favorite of street photographers, and the latest iteration - the GR III - brings a new sensor, redesigned lens, in-body stabilization and on-sensor phase detection. We spent some time with a pre-production model in London and have some initial impressions to share.

Ross Lowell was a man of many talents who had more than 25 patents to his name, created a lighting company and created gaffer tape, a staple in the camera bags of photographers and cinematographers the world over.

Ricoh's new WG-6 is the company's latest waterproof camera, with a 20MP sensor, 28-140mm equiv. lens and the ability to go 20m/65ft underwater. If you need something that's both crushproof and chemical-resistant, there's the G900, which is designed for industrial use.

At its Galaxy Unpacked event, Samsung has officially unveiled the Galaxy S10 and S10+ with a triple rear-camera array, as well as a more basic S10e model with a dual main camera unit. As expected, the S10 series' display is the center of attention with a hole-punch style front-facing camera embedded in the screen.

Samsung wasted no time unveiling the Galaxy Fold at its Unpacked event today – a foldable device with a 4.6" display when folded, and 7.3" display when unfolded. The device contains a total of six cameras – three on the back, two inside and one front-facing camera.

After a rare Seattle snowstorm finally subsided, DPReview editor Jeff Keller was able to escape the snow and spend some time with the impressive Fujifilm X-T30, a camera that offers a lot of bang for the buck.

Given that it uses the same sensor and processor as the X-T3, it's no surprise that the Fujifilm X-T30 is capable of producing some excellent photos. We took a pre-production X-T30 all over the Seattle area and have plenty of photos for your viewing pleasure.

Tamron has announced three new full-frame lenses slated to launch in the middle of 2019: an SP 35mm F1.4 Di USD and 35-150mm F2.8-4 Di VC OSD for DSLRs, as well as an ultra-wide 17-28mm F2.8 Di III RXD for Sony E-mount cameras.

The EF-M 32mm F1.4 is a welcome addition to Canon's APS-C mirrorless lens lineup. It's a good performer all-around and enjoyable to use on the EOS M50, and we hope to see more like it introduced to the EF-M range.

Panasonic is well known for including impressive video features on its cameras. In this article, professional cinematographer Jack Lam explains one killer feature the company could add to its S series that would shake up the industry – and it all comes down to manual focus.